{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16\n📝 Original message:I think we are misunderstanding the effect of this change.\nIt's still \"OK\" for a 50k re-org to happen.\nWe're just saying that if it does, we will now have potentially introduced\na hard fork between new client and old clients if the reorg contains\nearlier signaling for the most recent ISM soft fork and then blocks which\ndo not conform to that soft fork before the block height encoded activation.\n\nI think the argument is this doesn't substantially add to the confusion or\nusability of the system as its likely that old software won't even handle\n50k block reorgs cleanly anyway and there will clearly have to be human\ncoordination at the time of the event.  In the unlikely event that the new\nchain does cause such a hard fork, that coordination can result in everyone\nupgrading to software that supports the new rules anyway.\n\nSo no, I don't think we should add a checkpoint.  I think we should all\njust agree to a hard fork that only has a very very slim chance of any\npractical effect.\n\nIn response to Thomas' email.  I think ideally we would treat these soft\nforks the way we did BIP30 which is to say that we're just introducing a\nfurther soft fork that applies to all blocks except for the historical\nexceptions.  So then its a almost no-op soft fork with no risk of hard\nfork.   This however isn't practical with at least BIP 34 without storing\nthe hashes of all 200K blocks that don't meet the requirement.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Are checkpoints good now? Are hard forks okay now?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I think that at least one checkpoint should be included.  The assumption\n\u003e is that no 50k re-orgs will happen, and that assumption should be directly\n\u003e checked.\n\u003e\n\u003e Checkpointing only needs to happen during the headers-first part of the\n\u003e download.\n\u003e\n\u003e If the block at the BIP-65 height is checkpointed, then the comparisons\n\u003e for the other ones are automatically correct.  They are unnecessary, since\n\u003e the checkpoint protects all earlier block, but many people would like to be\n\u003e able to verify the legacy chain.\n\u003e\n\u003e This makes the change a soft-fork rather than a hard fork.  Chains that\n\u003e don't go through the checkpoint are rejected but no new chains are allowed.\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/5e407283/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}